Wedneday Block 1

Leyla: the game of russian roulette.

They're bound to upset someone, and there by shunned from society.

And this raises into question what happened to the first amendment.

The right to free speech.

We're joined by david hoffman, the founder of the hoffman law firm, who will tell us exactly what happened to our free speech.

David, it's great to see you again.

Great to see you.

Leyla: i kind of loaded the top here with a lot of stuff.

Cancel culture, we're giving too much oxygen to this, because a few people out there who cannot respect the idea or speech of someone else, free thought, they have something to say about it, and they want to shut people down.

I think our viewers are certainly open-minded enough to know that you don't have to like what the other person is saying, but to know there's something called the first amendment to the constitution.

Well, this is a special day for me, because we talked about a lot of great things on this segment.

But what we have stumbled across today, this is my favorite amendment of the u.s. constitution.

It is the entire amendment embodiesed why we're a free democratic government.

There are five parts of it, and it covers a number of things, but what we're talking about today is freedom of speech.

And what you have said leading in about people realizing and you don't necessarily have to like what the other person is saying.

Free speech is actually much more beautiful than that, because you can actually hate what the other person is saying.

It can drive you crazy.

You can come unglued with the idea of what that person across from you from saying.

The beauty of the free speech, the beauty of the first amendment is that we understand that as a free society, not only should you hear it, it's required that you hear it.

It's required that you accept the other view and you are free from government censorship.

Because that's really what it was designed to prevent, government censorship.

The government coming along and saying you can't say this, you can't object to my policies, you can't object to whatever we're doing as your government.

You have to be quiet.

And that's why it was enacted.

So with out the first amendment, with out free speech, we would be a completely different country right now.

Leyla: most definitely.

And i think people don't realize that while you can hate what the other person is saying, you have those same right to respond and say what you feel is true and right.

And that other person has the right to hate what you're saying.

Absolutely, and actually, if you go back to our founding fathers, and especially lately, we have heard that term used a lot.

But if you read the federalist papers, which were notes by the framers of the constitution, they understood just how important this was, and if you think about as a country, coming from a background where we couldn't voice our opinions, and a lot of countries couldn't voice, the citizens of different countries conn voice their opinions, it's my favorite amendment and that's why its number one.

I think a lot of people think it's the second amendment, but with out the first amendment, you can't argue about the second amendment.

Leyla: the reason we're talking about this, for everyone's edification here, there was a case raised in georgia, and it brings up another issue.

So i'll give everyone a brief synopsis about what happened.

A student at a public college in georgia wanted to hand out some religious pamphlets.

And he was doing so, on the one part of campus that the college told him you need to do it in this free speech zone, and he said fine, i'll do it there, and he moved and they wanted to shut him down.

And there were rulings that came out of this back and forth that were considered a moot case, which i wanted to talk about as well.

But the college essentially succeeded and they said you know what?

You're right, we were wrong, but this case went up to the supreme court and once it went up to the supreme court, there was an 8-1 decision in favor of the student.

So can you tell us a little bit more about that?

Well, so yeah, it's really interesting, because i don't know that there would be any judges left if people capitulated halfway through, and said you're right, mea culpa, but continued to go all the way up to the u.s. supreme court.

And in this case, it was the thing that kept the issue relevant if you will, the claim for nominal damages, and the school capitulated.

They admitted it, and they paid the student's legal fees, and then the student stock it to the supreme court, in the claim of nominal damage, it was $1, to my understanding, and they basically got an opinion from the justices saying, yes, the school was wrong.

The school already admitted they were wrong.

So in that sense, i kind of wonder what was gained.

But this case brings up a lot more questions that i have.

What exactly -- why would the school -- number one, why does the school need a free speech zone isn't that america?

Isn't america a free speech zone?

I never really understood that.

You have to cordon off part of the playground to say that you can speak freely here?

Apparently so, and we need to take a break.

When we come back, i want to talk about the one dissension from that decision, and that's justice john roberts and i want to talk about that.

It's really interesting.

Leyla: welcome back, and we're talking with david hoffman, and a ruling came out of georgia, the question of free speech.

8-1, the dissension by john roberts, he basically said what the lower courts said, it was a moot case because the student was bringing about damage of $1.

But it was material, it was something, but the campus, the academic institution said you were right in your ability to pass out the stuff.

But however, justice john roberts had a problem with that.

Can you talk about why you think that's significant?

Sure, the reason john roberts, the chief justice, and this is the first time that he has been alone in dissent in his 16 years on the bench.

And i sort of see where he's coming from.

The united states supreme court, are they really there to issue advisory opinions?

In other words, an advisory opinion, if there's no real material issue in front of them, courts typically don't just issue an opinion anyway, saying i understand that the school capitulated and they paid for all of your legal expenses and i understand that you were not really damaged with actuals.

I understand that all you want is a dollar, and we're going to issue this massive opinion anyway.

Typically, it's like free speech.

Flag burning or burning your draft card during vietnam.

This is where the real tough cases of the supreme court should be reserved for.

I don't know if you recall, but during vietnam, burning of the draft card, where it was determined to be free speech, thalthough the person was still found guilty of destroying public property and that's where the protect gets their most mileage.

That's where we need a supreme court.

I'm not sure we need a supreme court to decide a $1 damage case where the defendants have capitulated and that's where john roberts is coming from.

Leyla: do you think that it's the campus, the school, to say that the student was not allowed at this public college, he was not allowed to pass out this religious paperwork?

I mean, yes, you could say oops, i'm sorry, you're right, you were right, but initially, the knee-jerk reaction was to prevent him from doing it.

I agree with you, 100%.

It seems like a galacticly stupid decision for the school to make on its face, there are always more facts out there, and there's a second part of the first amendment, congressional make no law regarding the establishment of religion, and perhaps, since this was a public school, perhaps the school was concerned that maybe they were violating that clause of the first amendment.

So it could have been that it had nothing to do with the speech itself.

Maybe they thought they were helping in another area.

And then just got -- once they received guidance, they said look, you're fine, because i can't imagine that anybody would prevent a student from -- the whole thing is silly.

Why was there a free speech zone to begin with, it still kills me.

Leyla: like you said, all of america is a free speech zone, and unfortunately that's where we have to leave it.

Both unfortunately and fortunately, but we just barely hit on the tip of the iceberg this broader idea of free speech.

And it's still part of the constitution, and we should all feel free to exercise t.

Absolutely.

Leyla: good to see you again.

Back after this.